Who were the best knights?

Apachewarlord said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u35ZUtNmzU
look at the shields they're using.

Click to expand...

My knowledge of medieval shields is null but I remember the mention in "The Quest of the Holy Grail" that they sported the shields around the neck. In the images below there are rectangular objects in their necks reminding the shields in your video. However in the Lancelot and the Hermit image (first) you can see the "normal" shield in the horse so I imagine they had two, one for jousting or occasional lance duels other for combat with swords.

Apachewarlord said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u35ZUtNmzU
look at the shields they're using.

Click to expand...

Can't view that on my phone unfortunately, will have to come back to it tomorrow. Shame.

Just been reading some interesting bits on middle-ages.org though ... some knights had small shields actually attached to the waist on their armour. Some armour was designed to break up on impact and leave the knight still horsed, there was also a helmet where the eye slit was above eye-level so the knight had to lean forward to see out. At the last moment he'd sit up straight and thus avoid a broken lance in his eye (like the French one that Nostradamus supposedly predicted).
None of which answers your question sorry!

Yôḥānān;1303909 said:

My knowledge of medieval shields is null but I remember the mention in "The Quest of the Holy Grail" that they sported the shields around the neck. In the images below there are rectangular objects in their necks reminding the shields in your video.

Click to expand...

Yes those too. They would attach those 'mini-shields' to the point where a lance was most likely to strike.
(mini-shields hehe these bits and pieces generally have French technical names but I don't have access to any reference right now)

Can't find the name either.

Yôḥānān;1303930 said:

Can't find the name either.

Click to expand...

Looking more closely at your pics though, I think those attachments look more like something to protect the neck from a side swing, sword or axe etc.
Especially as there seems to be one on each side... if it was a jousting attachment I think it would only be on the one side.

From the picture, those aren't shields, and they're attached to the shoulder. They're more like military identification than any sort of protection.

I should also add, that particular piece of armour is known as an Ailette "little wing". There's quite a bit debate on if they added additional protection or not, but given their thickness and common materials (usually thick pieces of leather or wood), I have doubts (as did Ewart Oakeshott) that they were anything other than as I said in my past post, military identification/decoration for heraldic purposes.

There are some historians who suggest that they were for protection, but for the most part, there's nothing definitive about them.

Thegn Ansgar said:

I should also add, that particular piece of armour is known as an Ailette "little wing". There's quite a bit debate on if they added additional protection or not, but given their thickness and common materials (usually thick pieces of leather or wood), I have doubts (as did Ewart Oakeshott) that they were anything other than as I said in my past post, military identification/decoration for heraldic purposes.

There are some historians who suggest that they were for protection, but for the most part, there's nothing definitive about them.

Click to expand...

Interesting. One of the main objections to their having a solely heraldic/ID function seems to be that they were only used for a relatively short time and aren't seen after other protective components were employed.

"From the late 13th century, plate protection spread from the knees and elbows to encompass the extremities; square plates called ailettes, which protected the shoulder, made a brief appearance between about 1290 and 1325 before giving way to jointed plate defenses that covered the gap between ......plate and upper-arm" (Encyclopedia Britannica)

Also The Arador Armour Library and 1066 - Medieval Armour Terminology, but as you say there's no agreement as yet. I'm not sure myself though, that being made of leather or wood automatically disqualifies them from having a protective function - not all medieval protection was metal, by a long chalk. Shields for instance in many cases were made of wood and parchment.

This site has some labelled diagrams of assorted suits of armour etc -

Armour Diagrams

Nice vid Apachewarlord I think the component you're referring to is something like the 'besagew' but more comprehensive (see armour dictionary in the "beautifuliron.com link) and in your vid at 2:20-2:25 you can see that there's also a plate above that to prevent the lance point glancing upwards into the neck/face. Similar ones in this vid too - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO3gooVb400

The besagew I think though is intended to complement a shield rather than replace it entirely, at least in the form it's shown here. So, I don't know. Two points come to mind though - armour changed a lot through the period, it was the 'arms race' of its day in a sense so I guess it's possible that the ailette might have fulfilled two functions maybe at different times.
The other thing I was wondering about is whether modern jousting avoids the more traditional shield because it tends to break the user's arm. That's just guesswork though and other pics I've found show that some modern jousts do use traditional shields.



This late 14thC (Tales of Froissart) shows a similar design as in your vid, although they have no horses


This early 14thC pic (Codex Manesse) shows 'traditional' shields,


As does this renaissance pic possibly, although it's a little hard to see.


While this one of Charles V of Spain shows the other type -


So I suppose that going back to the question of which is correct, the answer is that they all are, at different times and in different places. It's relevant too that knights had to buy and maintain their own equipment, so while say, a King might have a whole selection of different suits and the latest technology, many would have only had the one for both military and tournament use.

Thegn Ansgar said:

I should also add, that particular piece of armour is known as an Ailette "little wing". There's quite a bit debate on if they added additional protection or not, but given their thickness and common materials (usually thick pieces of leather or wood), I have doubts (as did Ewart Oakeshott) that they were anything other than as I said in my past post, military identification/decoration for heraldic purposes.

There are some historians who suggest that they were for protection, but for the most part, there's nothing definitive about them.

Click to expand...

Consider that protection comes down to two areas: blunt trauma and rending. Blunt weapons were so popular in that time because they counteract most armor. You can't make them bleed on the outside, but you can make them bleed on the inside. Likely, those shoulder shields would collapse if hit by a mace or something similar. However, they'd be effective in preventing a sword from reaching the neck.

More stuff about jousting -

"[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The rules for this unique sport are believed to have been written by a Frenchman named Geoffori de Pruelli. Unfortunately for him, he died at the very first jousting tournament in history which occurred in the year 1066." ([/FONT]http://www.ultimatehorsesite.com/articles/ctadlock_jousting.html)

But concerning the shields in Apachewarlord's post, and modern competitive jousting, I found this on Wiki - "The rules are inspired by Realgestech (also Plankengestech), one of the forms of stechen practiced in 16th-century Germany, where reinforcing pieces were added to the jousting armour to serve as designated target areas. Instead of using a shield, the jousters aim for such a reinforcing piece added to the armour's left shoulder known as Brechschild (also Stechtartsche)." ([ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jousting"]Jousting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame])

More about the "Breschschild" here - [ame="http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brechschild"]Brechschild[/ame], as I thought it's partly because a shield could sometimes do more damage than it prevented.

Check this guy as well - Replicating Armor Designed for Jousting in the 16th Century - YouTube

And "As armor’s effectiveness decreased on the battlefield its popularity increased on the tournament field. By this point in history the tournament had become a highly specialized sport. It’s armour had evolved accordingly. Where early tournaments often involved knights in fights to the death, eventually it focused more on the illusion of danger and violence. Quasi professional athlete knights toured medieval Europe. Jousting armor sacrificed mobility to create a safer more solid defense against and oncoming lance. Lances were designed to shatter on impact and ...... plates were created with spring loaded contraptions. These would produce the illusion of flying apart. A theatrical device similar to the flash and glitter of today’s so called professional wrestling." (Thak Ironworks Inc. Blog: History of Armour by: Robb Martin)

I'm especially interested in the comment about spring-loaded armour that gave the illusion of flying apart, compared to a source I mentioned earlier that talked about armour that actually did break up as a means to absorb impact and let a knight stay on his horse.

Don't know if he's been mentioned yet, but John I (Jan I) Duke of Brabant, aka John the victorious, who lived in the later half of the 13th century was the king of jousting and was considered the greatest knight of his time.

John I was said to be a model of feudal prince: brave, adventurous; excelling in every form of active exercise, fond of display, and generous in temper. He was considered one of the most gifted princes of his time.[1] This made him very popular in Middle Ages poetry and literature. Even today there exists an ode to him, so well known that it was a potential candidate to be the North Brabant anthem. John I delighted in tournaments and was always eager to take part in jousts. He was also famous for his many illegitimate children.

Click to expand...

John I, Duke of Brabant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

edit: He also fought and won the biggest battle of the middle ages, the Battle at Worringen.

Sicknero said:

Interesting. One of the main objections to their having a solely heraldic/ID function seems to be that they were only used for a relatively short time and aren't seen after other protective components were employed.

"From the late 13th century, plate protection spread from the knees and elbows to encompass the extremities; square plates called ailettes, which protected the shoulder, made a brief appearance between about 1290 and 1325 before giving way to jointed plate defenses that covered the gap between ......plate and upper-arm" (Encyclopedia Britannica)

Also The Arador Armour Library and 1066 - Medieval Armour Terminology, but as you say there's no agreement as yet. I'm not sure myself though, that being made of leather or wood automatically disqualifies them from having a protective function - not all medieval protection was metal, by a long chalk. Shields for instance in many cases were made of wood and parchment.

This site has some labelled diagrams of assorted suits of armour etc -

Armour Diagrams

Nice vid Apachewarlord I think the component you're referring to is something like the 'besagew' but more comprehensive (see armour dictionary in the "beautifuliron.com link) and in your vid at 2:20-2:25 you can see that there's also a plate above that to prevent the lance point glancing upwards into the neck/face. Similar ones in this vid too - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO3gooVb400

The besagew I think though is intended to complement a shield rather than replace it entirely, at least in the form it's shown here. So, I don't know. Two points come to mind though - armour changed a lot through the period, it was the 'arms race' of its day in a sense so I guess it's possible that the ailette might have fulfilled two functions maybe at different times.
The other thing I was wondering about is whether modern jousting avoids the more traditional shield because it tends to break the user's arm. That's just guesswork though and other pics I've found show that some modern jousts do use traditional shields.
So I suppose that going back to the question of which is correct, the answer is that they all are, at different times and in different places. It's relevant too that knights had to buy and maintain their own equipment, so while say, a King might have a whole selection of different suits and the latest technology, many would have only had the one for both military and tournament use.

Click to expand...

Well of course their material does not automatically disqualify them as being armour. But it is one of the considerations that one must think of. It also tends to be older scholarship concerning the defensive properties of these things. Another thing to take note is that they were also made of parchment as well, and I take this from the MyArmoury forums, but a book was cited by David Crouch, where he mentions a surviving bill from a tournament ordering 400 ailettes made from silk, with the armoury devices of the two most prominent patrons of the tournament.

So while that does not rule out that maybe more substantial ailettes were used on the battlefield, it certainly does show that they were used in a decorative function. I have a feeling that they were used more for decorative, but perhaps in some situations could have been used as part of an armour kit and actually offered some protection. But as it stands now, with the way they're attached to the armour, it seems to me like they're much to flimsy to stop any sort of determined strike.

Thegn Ansgar said:

Well of course their material does not automatically disqualify them as being armour. But it is one of the considerations that one must think of. It also tends to be older scholarship concerning the defensive properties of these things. Another thing to take note is that they were also made of parchment as well, and I take this from the MyArmoury forums, but a book was cited by David Crouch, where he mentions a surviving bill from a tournament ordering 400 ailettes made from silk, with the armoury devices of the two most prominent patrons of the tournament.

So while that does not rule out that maybe more substantial ailettes were used on the battlefield, it certainly does show that they were used in a decorative function. I have a feeling that they were used more for decorative, but perhaps in some situations could have been used as part of an armour kit and actually offered some protection. But as it stands now, with the way they're attached to the armour, it seems to me like they're much to flimsy to stop any sort of determined strike.

Click to expand...

Just popped over for a look at MyArmoury, looks like a good site ta. I wonder then if the term 'ailette' was used to describe both decorative and functional items then. What do you think about the point that they were supposedly only around from about 1290-1235? As they were apparently replaced with more effective protection, it seems persuasive that at least one type of ailette was a functional item.
I can't really imagine a silk type such as you mention, being the same thing as ones made of wood/leather/parchment ... wood seems like an unusal choice for something that's just for decoration/ID.

http://www.liebaart.org/ailett_e.htm

http://www.flickr.com/photos/roelipilami/1634377515/in/set-72157602508791796/

Sicknero said:

Just popped over for a look at MyArmoury, looks like a good site ta. I wonder then if the term 'ailette' was used to describe both decorative and functional items then. What do you think about the point that they were supposedly only around from about 1290-1235? As they were apparently replaced with more effective protection, it seems persuasive that at least one type of ailette was a functional item.
I can't really imagine a silk type such as you mention, being the same thing as ones made of wood/leather/parchment ... wood seems like an unusal choice for something that's just for decoration/ID.

Click to expand...

The point that they were only around for a certain amount of time is actually also a fair bit of evidence that they were for decoration as well. One thing that seemingly is not taken into account concerning armour, at least by some people, is the influence of fashion on it. Considering how styles changed quite rapidly, would be a reason why it's only around for so long.

As for it being made of wood, they were quite thin, only about 1/4 to 1/3 of an inch thick. It's not so much their materials which make me question their protective qualities, as it is their size, and relative flimsiness. They were not strapped on securely, and I have doubts that any determined hit in the area they were in, would not have faced much resistance by the ailette itself. The maille is more likely to protect from a sword stroke than anything else, except perhaps added cuir boilli, specifically shaped for the shoulder, covering the maille in a form fitting way, than a square strapped flimsily to your shoulder/arm.

Thegn Ansgar said:

The point that they were only around for a certain amount of time is actually also a fair bit of evidence that they were for decoration as well. One thing that seemingly is not taken into account concerning armour, at least by some people, is the influence of fashion on it. Considering how styles changed quite rapidly, would be a reason why it's only around for so long.

As for it being made of wood, they were quite thin, only about 1/4 to 1/3 of an inch thick. It's not so much their materials which make me question their protective qualities, as it is their size, and relative flimsiness. They were not strapped on securely, and I have doubts that any determined hit in the area they were in, would not have faced much resistance by the ailette itself. The maille is more likely to protect from a sword stroke than anything else, except perhaps added cuir boilli, specifically shaped for the shoulder, covering the maille in a form fitting way, than a square strapped flimsily to your shoulder/arm.

Click to expand...

Yes, their short-lived appearance could be taken either way I agree. But changes in styles of armour were due to functional advances just as much as fashion.

As far as I know nobody has ever found an ailette, and there seem to have been many different styles/designs, so I don't think we really know exact details like how thick they were, how large they were (did you look at the tomb carving I posted earlier?), or how they were fastened.

There are some interesting points on the MyArmoury thread for both points of view if you read the whole thing. Also Ffoulkes' book mentions that in Germany they were called 'Tartschen', = buckler.

Must admit I'm not especially attached to either explanation so far, but I'm enjoying the discussion.

Thegn Ansgar said:

I should also add, that particular piece of armour is known as an Ailette "little wing". There's quite a bit debate on if they added additional protection or not, but given their thickness and common materials (usually thick pieces of leather or wood), I have doubts (as did Ewart Oakeshott) that they were anything other than as I said in my past post, military identification/decoration for heraldic purposes.

There are some historians who suggest that they were for protection, but for the most part, there's nothing definitive about them.

Click to expand...

Thank you Thegn Ansgar for solving the riddle. Until the experts decide I will entertain the opinion that they served for both..